India: Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence

Congratulations to Dipika Jain and Payal Shah, whose 2020 article recently appeared in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Dipika Jain is a Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Centre for Health Law, Ethics, and Technology at Jindal Global Law School. Payal K. Shah, recently acting as Regional Director for Asia at the Center for Reproductive Rights, is now a Reproductive Health Law Fellow in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. We are pleased to circulate the authors’ abstract and a link to their paper:

“Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence in India: Reflections on the Recent Decisions on Privacy and Gender Equality from the Supreme Court of India,” by Dipika Jain and Payal K. Shah. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 39.2 (2020): 1-53. Abstract and article online.

Despite the significant impact of decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, on a woman’s future life and enjoyment of her other human rights, the Indian judiciary has yet to clearly articulate the link between reproductive autonomy and gender equality. In the Puttaswamy decision, the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to reproductive choice is rooted within the constitutionally protected right to privacy. While the right to privacy has been the basis for ground-breaking judgments on reproductive rights globally, feminist legal theorists have voiced significant critiques as to the limits of privacy, specifically its potential to achieve reproductive autonomy and equality. We explore the applicability of these critiques in India, including concerns voiced by legal scholars regarding the limitations of the right to privacy as a tool for meaningful enjoyment of reproductive autonomy or gender equality as a whole.

The post-Puttaswamy decisions of Navtej Johar [on homosexuality] and Joseph Shine [on adultery] mark a shift in jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court relying on equality-based arguments to reject societal stigmatization and discrimination against the marginalized group in question. In both cases, the court set forth a framework to understand how the rights to privacy, equality, and non-discrimination on the basis of sex and gender intersect. This intersection of rights gives rise to an obligation of states to eliminate laws that reflect discriminatory gender stereotypes, including those pertaining to sexuality. Limits on the right to abortion indirectly or directly marginalize women by controlling their right to bodily autonomy and denying them privacy and equality. Hence, we argue that these cases demonstrate the potential success of arguments for reproductive rights based on equal citizenship.

We first lay out the legal framework and jurisprudence of reproductive rights in India before the Puttaswamy decision. We then explore the benefits of having a constitutionally recognized right to privacy and how it can advance reproductive rights. We also examine the drawbacks of using a privacy-based analysis as a foundation for reproductive rights due to its vulnerability to restriction on grounds of compelling state interest. Further, this we engage with feminist critiques of privacy rights as well as equality-based approaches and argue for a framework that takes into consideration meaningful choice and structural barriers to the exercise of reproductive autonomy. We critically examine judgments from comparative and international law that have a strong basis in the right to equality to reflect on how recognition of reproductive rights as an issue of gender justice—beyond just individual choice—could strengthen Indian reproductive rights jurisprudence. In other words, we argue for a reimagination of reproductive rights within an equality framework. Finally, we conclude that the use of an equality-based framework could significantly benefit pregnant persons’ right to reproductive autonomy.

The full text can be freely downloaded through this webpage.]

RELATED REPORTS by Payal K. Shah:

Securing Reproductive Justice in India: A Casebook, Center for Reproductive Rights, 2019 (co-authored with Mrinal Satish and Aparna Chandra) 520-page casebook, and chapters by topic.

Ensuring Reproductive Rights: Reform to Address Women’s and Girls’ Need for Abortion After 20 Weeks in India, Center for Reproductive Rights, 2018. 56-page report.

Reproductive Rights in Indian Courts, Center for Reproductive Rights, 2016. 4-page briefing.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our Publications,  Information Resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series.  TO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – January 2020

SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates monthly by email, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

DEVELOPMENTS
Colombian Constitutional Court grants “victim” status to member of armed rebel group suffering from forced and unsafe abortion, Sentencia SU-599/19, Communicado No. 50, December 11, 2019 (Constitutional Court of Colombia) “The decision is one of very few in the world to specifically recognise reproductive violence as a form of harm committed against women and girls in times of conflict” (Case comment by Dieneke de Vos).  Decision in Spanish.

Nigerian High Court upheld failure to register an organization to protect lesbian women: Pamela Adie v. Corporate Affairs Commission, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/827/2018.  Decision of November 16, 2018   (Federal High Court of Nigeria at Abuja)  Decision online.  Case comment by Obiagbaoso Maryanne Nkechi.

SCHOLARSHIP:
“Abortion: Global Perspectives and Country Experiences,” edited by Iqbal H. Shah, Special Issue of Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, includes:

— “Abortion: Professional responsibility beyond safe healthcare,”
by Mahmoud F. Fathalla, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 1-2) Editorial

— “Decriminalization of abortion – A human rights imperative,” by
Joanna N. Erdman and Rebecca J. Cook, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 11-24) Abstract and article

—“When there are no abortion laws: A case study of Canada,”
by Dorothy Shaw and Wendy V. Norman, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 62 (Jan. 2020): 49-62. Abstract and article.

Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters just published three issues for 2019:
— “The gender injustice of abortion laws,” by Joanna N. Erdman, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27:1 (Feb 2019): 4-8, Abstract and article.
— “Criminalisation under scrutiny: how constitutional courts are changing their narrative by using public health evidence in abortion cases,” by Verónica Undurraga, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.1 (Feb 2019): 41-51. Abstract and article.
— “Politics, power and sexual and reproductive health, by Sarah Pugh, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.2 (Oct. 2019): 1-5, Table of Contents. Editorial.
— “Eliminating stigma and discrimination in sexual and reproductive health care: a public health imperative,” by Julia Hussein and Laura Ferguson, Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27.3 (Dec 2019): 1-5 Table of Contents. Editorial.

“Abortion Law Reform” Special section of: Health and Human Rights Journal vol. 21.2 (December 2019), online here, includes:
— “Progress towards decriminalization of abortion and universal access to safe abortions: National Trends and Strategies,” editorial by Marge Berer and Lesley Hoggart
— “Abortion in Chile: The Long Road to Legalization and its Slow Implementation,” by Gloria Maira, Lidia Casas, and Lieta Vivaldi. Abstract and article.
—“Denial of Safe Abortion to Survivors of Rape in India,” by Padma Bhate-Deosthali and Sangeeta Rege. Abstract and article.

“Abortion in the Middle East and North Africa” another special section of: Health and Human Rights Journal 21.2 (December 2019), online here, introduced by:
— “The Limits of the Law: Abortion in the Middle East and North Africa,” by Irene Maffi and Liv Tønnessen, Introduction by guest editors.

Abortion Law Decisions webpage, with links to court decisions, updated January 2020, is online here.

[Inter-American] “Women’s Reproductive Rights: Repairing Gender-Based harm in the Inter-American System of Human Rights,” by Ciara O’Connell, PhD diss., University of Sussex, U.K., School of Law, Politics and Sociology, March 2017. Doctoral thesis online. Abstract and overview of case studies.

US-focused news, resources, and legal developments are available  on Repro Rights Prof Blog. View or subscribe.

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.
______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our Publications,  Information resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series.  TO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

Inter-American Repro Rights Reparations – thesis by Ciara O’Connell

Congratulations to Dr. Ciara O’Connell, now a Research Fellow at the Law School of Trinity College Dublin, whose 2017 doctoral thesis from the University of Sussex is now freely accessible online. We are pleased to circulate her abstract, into which we have inserted {in curly brackets} her introductions to the three Inter-American cases she analyzed.

Ciara O’Connell, “Women’s Reproductive Rights: Repairing Gender-Based harm in the Inter-American System of Human Rights,” PhD diss., University of Sussex, U.K., School of Law, Politics and Sociology, March 2017. Doctoral thesis online.

This thesis examines women’s reproductive rights litigation before the Inter-American System of Human Rights and determines how the Inter-American System can more effectively take account of, and repair, harms specific to women in reproductive rights cases. It builds upon a growing body of literature on women’s rights in the Inter-American System, and employs feminist socio-legal methodologies to identify the structural obstacles which cause violations of women’s reproductive rights, and to challenge the gap between gender-based rhetoric and reparation in women’s reproductive rights cases. The thesis centres around three specific cases. These cases are critically examined using the Holistic Gender Approach to Reparations developed by Ruth Rubio-Marín and Clara Sandoval. In applying this Approach to the case studies, it is possible to determine how, to what extent and to what effect, each reproductive rights case incorporates gendered harm in its reparation design.

{The cases selected for this research project are emblematic in nature, and represent violations of women’s reproductive rights on a massive scale. The first case study examines María Mamerita Mestanza Chávez v. Peru, which was a Friendly Settlement Agreement. This case remains open before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and was selected because it addressed the coercive sterilization of thousands of Peruvian women, and because the Agreement included an analysis, albeit limited, of socio-cultural discrimination as a cause of women’s reproductive rights violations.
The second case, Paulina del Carmen Jacinto Ramírez v. Mexico, was also a Friendly Settlement Agreement, but in this case the State and the victim reached an agreement before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights formally admitted the case. The case was an abortion rights case that highlights the restrictions women and girls face when attempting to access their legal rights to abortion services. The Inter-American Commission closed this case, despite the fact that the State of Mexico failed to comply with all of the measures of the Friendly Settlement Agreement. The analysis conducted of each of these Agreements highlights the potential of the Friendly Settlement Agreement mechanism to transform the reproductive lives of women through gender-based reparations.
The final case, Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica, was selected for analysis because it is, at this point, the Inter-American System’s only binding reproductive rights judgment, and as such, it is the first glimpse into the Inter-American Court’s approach to repairing gender-based
harm in a reproductive rights case. This case examined the right to in vitro fertilization for heterosexual married couples in Costa Rica, and is especially significant because the Inter-American Court expanded the definition of reproductive health, and included an analysis of the disproportionate impact of gender stereotyping on the lives of women.}
(pp. 8-9)

This research utilizes doctrinal and empirical research methods to draw conclusions about how the Inter-American System and members of civil society such as women’s rights organizations and litigators can expand upon and improve the Inter-American System’s approach to repairing and eliminating violations of women’s reproductive rights. Through information gathered from interviews with actors familiar with the case studies and the Inter-American System, this thesis determines a number of strategies to improve the transformative potential of reparations issued by the Inter-American Commission and Court. These strategies, when combined with the Holistic Gender Approach to Reparations, establish the foundation on which to develop a “gender reparations tradition” within reproductive rights litigation before the Inter-American System of Human Rights.

The entire thesis (272 pages, PDF) can be downloaded here: Doctoral thesis.

Related Resources:

Ruth Rubio-Marín and Clara Sandoval, “Engendering the Reparations Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Promise of the ‘Cotton Field’ Judgment” (2011) 33:4 Human Rights Quarterly 1062-1091. English PDF.

“Human Rights to In Vitro Fertilization” by Fernando Zegers-Hochschild, Bernard M. Dickens and Sandra Dughman-Manzur, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 123 (2013) 86–89. English PDF. Texto y PDF en Español

Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives, by Rebecca J. Cook and Simone Cusack (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010). About the book. Spanish edition (311 pages) PDF

______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our Publications,  Information resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series.  TO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

“The Gender Injustice of Abortion Laws” by Joanna Erdman

Congratulations to Professor Joanna N. Erdman, now Associate Director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Dalhousie, whose commentary was recently published in Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters (formerly known as Reproductive Health Matters).

Joanna N. Erdman, “The Gender Injustice of Abortion Laws,” Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 2019; 27(1): 4–8. Abstract and article.

This commentary is a response to Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska’s article on the treatment of criminal abortion laws as a form of sex discrimination under international human rights law through a study of two communications to the UN Human Rights Committee, Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland. The commentary offers a reading of these communications, and specifically the sex discrimination analysis premised on inequalities of treatment among women, as an engagement with the structural discrimination that characterises abortion laws, and as a radical vision for gender justice under international human rights law.

Prof. Erdman concludes that “By focusing on the gender stereotype that anchored the Irish prohibition in Mellet and Whelan, the [UN Human Rights] Committee moved beyond ideas of substantive equality to tackle the structural discrimination that characterises abortion law. These communications are not about comparing women to men, or comparison at all. They concern foremost the use of gender in law to rationalise inequality and injustice. Unconventional in its approach but radical in its vision, the Committee’s engagement with the structural discrimination of the Irish abortion prohibition opens international human rights law to a range of gender injustices. The Committee set out to remake gender from a set of fixed categories and essential identity traits into a source of equality and liberation for all. “Inherent to the principle of … gender equality,” as expressed under CEDAW [Gen Rec 28, para 22], “is the concept that all human beings, regardless of sex, are free to … make choices without the limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles and prejudices.” Mellet and Whelan are important legal precedents for the decriminalisation of abortion as a human rights imperative. Yet they are also case studies in a vision of gender justice under international law.”

Keywords: abortion, discrimination, equality, human rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), United Nations Human Rights Committee.

“The Gender Injustice of Abortion Laws is available online: Abstract and article.

RELATED RESOURCES:
“A tough job: recognizing access to abortion as a matter of equality. A commentary on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland,” by Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska,  Reproductive Health Matters 26.54 (Nov. 2018): 25-31.  Article online.

“Ireland must comply with international human rights obligations, including HRC rulings in Whelan and Mellet cases, by Mercedes Cavallo, LL.M., Reprohealthlaw Blog, January 31, 2018.  Comment online,

Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives, by Rebecca J. Cook and Simone Cusack (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010) English edition: about the book. Libro en espanol, 2011, PDF.

______________
Compiled by: the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca.   See Program website for our Publications,  Information resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series.  TO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

Uruguay: Gender stereotypes in the abortion law

Congratulations to Lucía Berro Pizzarossa, LL.M., a doctoral candidate in International Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, who has published several articles about abortion law.  We are pleased to circulate the abstract of her latest article, and links to some others by the same author.

Lucía Berro Pizzarossa,‘“Women are Not in the Best Position to Make These Decisions by Themselves”: Gender Stereotypes in the Uruguayan Abortion Law’ (2019) University of Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal 25-54.  Article online.

Abstract:     Efforts to protect women’s rights can cast dark shadows. Dangerous and often unnoticed stereotypes can motivate and infiltrate legal reforms. Recent changes to the law on abortion in Uruguay have been held out as a best practice model in South America.  Recognising the power of the law to shape our understandings of how people are and should be, this article aims to unpack the stereotypes on women seeking abortions in the Uruguayan legal discourse and map how the law on abortion gives legal force to these harmful stereotyped ideas.  This article analyses the parliamentary proceedings on the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy Act. It asks: Do the debates on abortion in Uruguay reveal a cultural shift? Do members of parliament’s arguments hinge on harmful stereotypes?

In asking these questions, this article explores the extent to which a fairly liberal and widely praised domestic abortion law complies with the national and international human rights obligations to eradicate harmful gender stereotypes. Mining the rhetoric used in the parliament debates reveals the stereotyped images of women that seek abortion services that—rather than reflecting the true complexity and diverse experiences of women that seek abortion—are grounded in women’s perceived degree of deviance from gendered stereotypes, particularly those surrounding motherhood. Uruguayan abortion law, while seemingly protecting women’s rights, in fact hinges on traditional gender attitudes and stereotypes. This article provides the foundations to further develop sophisticated legal and political strategies for fulfilling women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Other articles authored by Lucía Berro Pizzarossa:

“Here to Stay: The Evolution of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in International Human Rights Law,” by Lucía Berro Pizzarossa, Laws, 7.3 (2018): 1-17. Open Access Article.

“Realising the right to sexual and reproductive health: Access to essential medicines for medical abortion as a core obligation.” by Katrina Perehudoff, Lucía Berro Pizzarossa and Jelle Stekelenburg BMC International Health and Human Rights, 18.1 (2018) [8 pages]. Article online.

“Legal barriers to access abortion services through a human rights lens: the Uruguayan experience,” by Lucía Berro Pizzarossa, Reproductive Health Matters 26:52(2018): 151-158.  Abstract and article.

“Global Survey of National Constitutions: Mapping Constitutional Commitments to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,” by Lucía Berro Pizzarossa and Katrina S. Perehudoff,  Health and Human Rights 19.2 (2017): 279-293. Abstract and Article.  Also published in Healthcare as a Human Rights Issue: Normative Profile, Conflicts and Implementation, ed. Sabine Klotz, Heiner Bielefeldt, Martina Schmidhuber, Andreas Frewer (Bielefeld, Germany:  Transcript Verlag, 2017) 321-346  Open Access chapter.

See also:
Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives, by Rebecca J. Cook and Simone Cusack, (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010),  Book in English.
Spanish edition online: PDF

______________
Compiled by the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca   See Program website for our Publications,  Information resources, and Reprohealthlaw Commentaries Series.
TO JOIN THE REPROHEALTHLAW BLOG: enter your email address in the upper right corner of our blog, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – February 2019

SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates monthly by email, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

DEVELOPMENTS:

[abortion] Ireland – The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act was signed into law, effective January 1, 2019.  Medical Council also deleted four of the five paragraphs dealing with abortion from its guide on professional conduct and ethics because they conflicted with the Act.  Newspaper article.

[abortion -Northern Ireland] UK Supreme Court had ruled in June ([2018] UKSC 27 (7 June 2018)  On appeal from: [2017] NICA 42)  that violation of European Convention on Human Rights could not be decided without at least one complainant.  On January 30, 2019,  Sara Ewart, who had once travelled for abortion of a fatally impaired fetus, launched a case that could find Northern Ireland’s abortion law in breach of the UK’s human rights commitments. She is supported by Amnesty International.  News article.  Amnesty International press release.

[conscience – institutional] Chile, Constitutional Court upheld an unconstitutionality claim against the government’s new Regulations about the scope of “institutional” conscientious objection for private facilities and clinics.  STC Rol N° 5572-18-CDS / 5650-18-CDS (acumuladas). January 18, 2019.   Spanish decision  English news report.

[conscience]   Norway: Supreme Court upholds rights of doctor who refused to insert IUD.  Two cases: I. Sauherad municipality (Counsel Frode Lauareid) v. A, Norges Kristelige Legeforening (intervener) (Counsel Håkon H. Bleken), II. A, Norges Kristelige Legeforening (intervener) (Counsel Håkon H. Bleken) v. Sauherad municipality (Counsel Frode Lauareid, HR-2018-1958-A (case no. 2018/199), 11 October 2018 (Supreme Court of Norway) Judgment online in English – official translation.      Newspaper article.

[stigma] US:  Vending Machines Offer Emergency Contraception Without the Stigma introduced in 2012, now at several campuses, including Stanford University.   News report.

SCHOLARSHIP:

[abortion access]  Crossing Troubled Waters: Abortion in Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Prince Edward Island, ed. Colleen MacQuarrie, Fiona Bloomer, Claire Pierson and Shannon Stettner (Charlottetown, PEI, Canada: Island Studies Press, 2018). 288 pages.      Table of Contents.  Publisher’s web page.

[abortion law]   “Criminal law and the risk of harm: a commentary on the impact of criminal laws on sexual and reproductive health, sexual conduct and key populations,” by Veronica Birga, Luisa Cabal, Lucinda O’Hanlon & Christina Zampas.   Reproductive Health Matters, 26.52 (2018): 33-37 Article online.

[abortion law, Argentina] Federalism, two-level games and the politics of abortion rights implementation in sub-national Argentina, by Alba Ruibal, in Reproductive Health Matters 26:54 (Nov. 2018): 137-144.   Article in English with abstracts in English. French & Spanish.

[abortion law, Argentina] “Legal obstacles and social change: strategies of the abortion rights movement in Argentina,” by Alba Ruibal and Cora Fernandez Anderson, in Politics, Groups and Identity,  preview November 2018, 17 pages.  Institutional access.   Abstract from Safe Abortion.

[abortion law, Argentina]”Federalism and subnational legal mobilization: feminist litigation strategies in Salta, Argentina,” by Alba Ruibal,  Law & Society Review,  32-page preview 29 October 2018. Institutional access.    Abstract from Safe Abortion.

[abortion law – Brazil]  Constitutionalizing Abortion in Brazil, by Marta Machado and Rebecca J. Cook, Revista de Investigações Constitucionais / Journal of Constitutional Research, vol. 5, n. 3 (set./dez. 2018) pp.185-231.  Abstract and Article PDF.   Also at SSRN.

[abortion law – Brazil and Mexico]  “Constitutionalism and rights protection in Mexico and Brazil: comparative remarks,“ by Francisca Pou Giménez, in Revista de Investigações Constitucionais / Journal of Constitutional Research, vol. 5, n. 3 (set./dez. 2018) pp 233-255  Abstract and article PDF.

[abortion law, Dominican Republic]  “It’s Your Decision.  It’s Your Life:  Total criminalization of abortion in the Dominican Republic.”  interviews, plus legal overview and recommendations.  (Human Rights Watch, Nov 19, 2018).   84 pages. English PDF    Spanish PDF.   Online in English.    Overview with 5-minute video.

[abortion law -Ireland]  “Abortion, the Irish Constitution, and constitutional change” by David Kenny, Revista de Investigações Constitucionais / Journal of Constitutional Research, vol. 5, n. 3 (set./dez. 2018) pp. 257-275.   Abstract and Article PDF.

[abortion law, Mexico] “Maternidad o Castigo:  La criminalización del aborto en Mexico,”  (Mexico, GIRE, 2018)  [Report in Spanish:] Informe de 72 paginas.  For executive summary in English, see: Motherhood or Punishment: The criminalization of abortion in Mexico:  English summary.

[abortion law] “Northern Ireland and Abortion Law Reform,” by Kathryn McNeilly, Fiona Bloomer and Claire Pierson,  Queen’s University, Ulster University and University of Liverpool, Sept. 2018, open access, 8 pages.  Briefing Paper.

[adolescents]  “(De)Criminalizing Adolescent Sex: A rights-based assessment of age of consent laws in Eastern and Southern Africa,” by Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude and Ann Skelton, SAGE Open (Oct-Dec 2018): 1 –12.   Article online.   Abstract.

[conscience]  “Objection ladies! Taking IPPF-EN v. Italy one step further, by Emmanuelle Bribosia, Ivana Isailovic and Isabelle  Rorive, in:  Integrated Human Rights in Practice:Rewriting Human Rights Decisions, ed. Eva Brems and Ellen Desmet (Cheltenham, UK:  Elgar, 2018).  Abstract and previous version.

[conscience]  “Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights,” by Louise Melling, chapter 14 in:  The Conscience Wars: Rethinking the Balance between Religion, Identity, and Equality, ed. Susanna Mancini and Michel Rosenfeld (Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press, 2018)  pp. 375-391.   Institutional Access.

[conscience]  “Seeking to square the circle:  Conscientious objection in Reproductive Healthcare” by Emmanuelle Bribosia and Isabelle  Rorive, chapter 15 in:  The Conscience Wars: Rethinking the Balance between Religion, Identity, and Equality, ed. Susanna Mancini and Michel Rosenfeld (Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press, 2018)  pp. 392-413.  Institutional Access.    Abstract and previous version

 

[gender stereotyping, I.V. v. Bolivia, sterilization]  “The human rights impact of gender stereotyping in the context of reproductive health care,” by Ciara O’Connell and Christina Zampas,  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 144 (2019):  116–121.  PDF online here.

[maternal health] Impact of reproductive evolutionary mismatch on women’s health and the need for action and research, by Mahmoud F. Fathalla, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 144 (Feb. 2019): 129–134.  Institutional Access.  

[New book] Beyond Virtue and Vice:  Rethinking Human Rights and Criminal Law
ed.  Alice M. Miller and Mindy Jane Roseman,  Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019)  360 pages. Book information.
Intro and chapters 1 and 3 online.
Chapters about abortion law include:
ο    “Abortion as Treason: Sexuality and nationalism in France” by Mindy Jane Roseman
ο    “Criminal Law, Activism and Sexual and Reproductive Justice: What we can learn from the sex selection campaign in India,” by Geetanjali Misra and Vrinda Marwah
ο    “Harm Production: An argument for decriminalization,”  by Joanna N. Erdman

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here.

Senior Vice President, Global Legal Program, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, USA.    Job details and application form.

______________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

 

 

 

 

Human rights impact of gender stereotyping in reproductive health care

Congratulations and thanks to Ciara O’Connell of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for Human Rights, and Christina Zampas,  a Fellow in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, whose co-authored article was recently published in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics:

“The human rights impact of gender stereotyping in the context of reproductive health care,” by Ciara O’Connell and Christina Zampas,  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 144 (2019):  116–121.  PDF online here.

Abstract:
Gender stereotypes surrounding women’s reproductive health impede women’s access to essential reproductive healthcare and contribute to inequality more generally. Stereotyping in healthcare settings impedes women’s access to contraceptive information, services, and induced abortion, and lead to involuntary interventions in the context of sterilization. Decisions by human rights monitoring bodies, such as the Inter‐American Court of Human Rights’ case, IV v. Bolivia, which was a case concerned with the involuntary sterilization of a woman during childbirth, highlight how stereotypes in the context of providing health care can operate to strip women of their agency and decision‐making authority, deny them their right to informed consent, reinforce gender hierarchies and violate their reproductive rights. In the present article, IV v. Bolivia is examined as a case study with the objective being to highlight how, in the context of coercive sterilization, human rights law has been used to advance legal and ethical guidelines, including the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ (FIGO) own guidelines, on gender stereotyping and reproductive healthcare. The Inter‐American Court’s judgment in IV v. Bolivia illustrates the important role FIGO’s guidance can play in shaping human rights standards and provides guidance on the service provider’s role and responsibility in eliminating gender stereotypes and upholding and fulfilling human rights.

KEYWORDS

Ethical standards; FIGO guidelines; Forced sterilization; Human rights; Human rights law;  Informed consent; Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Stereotypes.

The published article is online here.

__________________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

 

REPROHEALTHLAW Updates – January 2019

SUBSCRIBE TO REPROHEALTHLAW: To receive these updates monthly by email, enter your address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

DEVELOPMENTS

Democratic Republic of the Congo: Legal access to abortion expanded in July 2018, to comply with Article 14 of the (Maputo) Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa. “Women can now legally access abortion – in cases of sexual assault, rape or incest, or when the continuing pregnancy would endanger the mental and physical health of the woman or the life of the woman or the fetus.”  Details from Safe Abortion.

El Salvador: Court frees another woman jailed under anti-abortion laws, BBC News (Dec. 18, 2018).   BBC News article

[U.N. Human Rights Committee]  General comment No. 36 (2018) on  article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life.” U.N. Doc, CCPR/C/GC/36, October 30, 2018. Advance unedited version.

ABORTION LAW DECISIONS ON THE WEB

Abortion Law Decisions webpages, in English and Spanish, are now updated with new court decisions and alternate links to older decisions. Prepared by our International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law, it includes Domestic, Regional and International Jurisprudence.  English edition.   Spanish edition.

SCHOLARSHIP:

[abortion]  “Understandings of self-managed abortion as health inequity, harm reduction and social change,” by Joanna N. Erdman, Kinga Jelinska & Susan Yanow, Reproductive Health Matters 26.54 (Nov. 2018): 13-19.   Abstract and article.

[abortion]  “Re-situating Abortion: Bio-politics, Global Health and Rights in Neo-liberal Times.” Special Issue of Global Public Health 13.6 (2018). Guest Editors: Maya Unnithan and Silvia de Zordo.  Table of Contents with links to articles.

[abortion guidelines – France] “Elective abortion: Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)”  Christophe Vayssière et al.,et. al. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 222 (March 2018): 95–101  Abstract and article.

[abortion law – Malawi] “The Duty to make abortion law transparent:  A Malawi case study,”  by Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude and Chisale Mhango, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 143 (Dec. 2018): 409–413.   PDF at Wiley online.  Submitted text at SSRN.

[abortion law  – Ireland] “A tough job: recognizing access to abortion as a matter of equality. A commentary on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland,” by Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska,  Reproductive Health Matters 26.54 (Nov. 2018): 25-31.  Article online.

[abortion law – United Kingdom]  “UK Abortion Law: Reform Proposals, Private Members’ Bills, Devolution and the Role of the Courts,” by Robert Brett Taylor, Adelyn L.M. Wilson, Modern Law Review, 2019  Abstract and article.

[abortion laws – sex selection, India and U.S.] Women’s human rights and migration: sex selective abortion laws in the United States and India, by Sital Kalantry, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017, 272 pp.,  Reviewed in International Feminist Journal of  Politics

[abortion policies database] “Global Abortion Policies Database: a new approach to strengthening knowledge on laws, policies, and human rights standards,” by Brooke Ronald Johnson, Jr., Antonella Francheska Lavelanet and Stephanie Schlitt, BMC International Health and Human Rights 18.35 (Sept 2018): 1-5.  Abstract and article.

[abortion rights – Argentina] “Federalism, two-level games and the politics of abortion rights implementation in subnational Argentina, by Alba Ruibal, Reproductive Health Matters 54 (Nov. 2018): 137-144.  Article online.

[Europe] “Women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe,” Issue Paper by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (France: Council of Europe, Dec. 2017).  78-page Issue Paper.

[gender stereotypes – judiciary]  “Background paper on the role of the judiciary in addressing the harmful gender stereotypes related to sexual and reproductive health and rights: A review of case law.”  (Geneva: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, [2018])  in English  and Spanish

“Impact of reproductive evolutionary mismatch on women’s health and the need for action and research,” by Mahmoud F. Fathalla, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 144.2 (Feb. 2019): 129-134 | Abstract and article online.

US-focused news, resources, and legal developments are available  on Repro Rights Prof Blog.   View or subscribe.

JOBS

Links to employers in the field of Reproductive and Sexual Health Law are online here
______________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

 

 

 

 

El papel del Poder Judicial en el abordaje de los estereotipos nocivos de género

Muchas gracias por este documento de antecedentes, que forma parte de una serie de documentos de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos sobre la estereotipación de género.  Agradecemos a Christina Zampas y a Johanna B. Fine por su trabajo de investigación y preparación de las versiones anteriores.

Documento de antecedentes sobre el papel del Poder Judicial en el abordaje de los estereotipos nocivos de género en casos relativos a la salud y los derechos sexuales y reproductivos: Una reseña de la jurisprudencia (Geneva: OHCHR, 2018)
Informe en español.   (Same report in English)

En este documento, se analiza cómo han impugnado los tribunales nacionales y subnacionales y los órganos judiciales internacionales y regionales3 la estereotipación nociva de género presente en la legislación, en las políticas o en distintas causas seleccionadas en materia de salud y derechos sexuales y reproductivos (SDSR) que fueron dirimidas en tribunales de primera instancia. Por otro lado, también se analizan casos donde estos tribunales y órganos han incurrido en una estereotipación nociva, lo que se traduce en violaciones de los derechos humanos. También se analiza la jurisprudencia pertinente de los organismos cuasijudiciales internacionales y regionales y de los mecanismos de derechos humanos. Por último, el documento intenta identificar estrategias y formular recomendaciones sobre la función que cumple la judicatura a la hora de abordar la estereotipación nociva en casos de esta naturaleza. Índice

Este informe de 45 páginas demuestra los prejuicios y las creencias acerca del sexo, los roles de los sexos y las características sexuales de los hombres y las mujeres obstaculizan el pleno disfrute de los derechos en materia de salud y derechos sexuales y reproductivos, y en consecuencia, marginan y excluyen a los individuos que no cumplen o no conforman los mandatos de género y subordinan y controlan a las mujeres y a las niñas. Por este motivo, al identificar y desarticular de manera explícita los estereotipos y al adjudicar recursos eficaces para hacerles frente, los tribunales tienen y pueden tener un importante impacto transformador para catalizar la eliminación de los estereotipos de género y garantizar la igualdad en toda la sociedad.

Índice

I. Introducción
i. Antecedentes
ii. Cómo entender los estereotipos, la estereotipación, su vínculo con los derechos humanos y el papel del Poder Judicial

II. La estereotipación y los estereotipos de género y la salud y los derechos sexuales y reproductivos
i. Estereotipos sobre la reproducción
ii. Los estereotipos sobre los roles dentro de la familia, el matrimonio y las relaciones familiares
iii. Estereotipos sobre los actos sexuales consensuales
iv. Estereotipos sobre la identidad de género

III. Estrategias para fortalecer la función del Poder Judicial en la eliminación de los estereotipos.
i. Reformar leyes, políticas y marcos regulatorios/orientativos
ii. Identificar y poner de relieve las buenas prácticas
iii. Monitorear y analizar el razonamiento judicial
iv. Hacer frente a la estereotipación judicial
v. Fortalecer la capacidad judicial
vi. Defender la diversidad dentro del poder judicial.

Recursos Relacionados:

Rebecca J. Cook y Simone Cusack, Estereotipos de Género: Perspectivas Legales Transnacionales, traducido por: Andrea Parra, 291 pp  (Bogota: Profamilia Colombia, 2011). Tabla de Contenido,  El Libro (291 pp) PDF    (Entrevista em português)

Rebecca J. Cook,  Estereotipos de Género: Perspectivas Legales Transnacionales, en:  Violencia Contra La Mujer y Justicia Reproductiva, IV Congreso LatinoAmericano Jurídico sobre Derechos Reproductivos, 2, 3, y 4 de Noviembre de 2015 en Lima Peru. (Lima:  PROMSEX, 2017):  pp. 27-74.  en línea aquí.

Rebecca J. Cook, Bernard M. Dickens and Simone Cusack, “La Estereotipación Poco Ética de la Mujer en la Salud Reproductiva,”  Discusiones sobre Genero, Sexualidad y Derecho: Taller 2010, ed. Alejandro Madrazo, Estefanía Vela, y Cecilia Garibi.  (Mexico D.F.: Fontamara, 2013) 123-134.   en línea aquí.

Otras publicaciones relevantes en español  están en línea aquí.
____________________________________
ÚNETE a este REPROHEALTHLAW Blog aquí.   Participe deste blog aqui.
REPROHEALTHLAW website:  Nuestras publicaciones sobre salud reproductiva y derechos humanos en español o português están en línea aquí.

Judicial roles in addressing harmful RSH gender stereotypes

Congratulations to our esteemed colleagues from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) who, with assistance from human rights experts Christina Zampas and Johanna B. Fine, recently issued the following publication, in English and Spanish.

Background paper on the role of the judiciary in addressing the harmful gender stereotypes related to sexual and reproductive health and rights: A review of case Law.  (Geneva: OHCHR, 2018)   in English  and Spanish

This paper analyzes how national and sub-national courts and international and regional judicial bodies have challenged wrongful gender stereotyping in legislation, policies or cases by lower courts concerning select sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) issues. It also analyses cases where these courts and bodies have instead engaged in wrongful stereotyping, resulting in violations of human rights.  Relevant jurisprudence from international and regional quasi-judicial bodies and human rights mechanisms is also analyzed in the study.  The paper finally seeks to identify strategies and make recommendations concerning the role of the judiciary in addressing wrongful stereotyping in such cases.

Overall, the report demonstrates that misperceptions and beliefs about the sex, sex role and sexual characteristics of men and women obstruct the full enjoyment of SRHR, operating to marginalize and exclude gender non-conforming individuals and to subordinate and control women and girls. As such, by explicitly identifying, debunking, and awarding effective remedies to address stereotypes, courts have and can have a critically important transformative impact in catalyzing the elimination of gender stereotypes and ensuring equality throughout society.

After briefly introducng stereotypes, stereotyping, and the role of the judiciary, the authors examine stereotypes related to:

• reproduction
• family formation
• consensual sexual conduct, and
• gender identity.

It then offers strategies for strengthening the role of the judiciary in eliminating stereotyping.  These strategies are discussed under the following headings:

• Legal policy, and regulatory/guidance reforms
• Identify and highlight good practices
• Monitor and analyze judicial reasoning
• Challenge judicial stereotyping in cases
• Build judicial capacity, and
• Advocate for diversity within the judiciary.

The entire 45-page background paper is online   in English  and Spanish

Related Resources:

“The human rights impact of gender stereotyping in the context of reproductive health care,” by Ciara O’Connell and Christina Zampas,  forthcoming in International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2019.  PDF Early View online here.

“Unethical Female Stereotyping in Reproductive Health,” by R.J. Cook, Simone Cusack and Bernard M. Dickens.  International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics  109 (2010) 255–258. PDF online. Alternate link.  Spanish translation.

Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives, by Rebecca J. Cook and Simone Cusack, Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights Series, University of Pennsylvania Press 2010.  Book information.  Spanish translation, 311 pages.
_____________________________________
Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.

 

 

 

 

 

Related resources

?Gender stereotyping book 2010 EN and Spanish

Zampas blog on gender stereotyping IV Bolivia?

Compiled by the Coordinator of the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program, reprohealth*law at utoronto.ca For Program publications and resources, see our website, online here. TO JOIN THIS BLOG: enter your email address in upper right corner of this webpage, then check your email to confirm the subscription.